I believe that unless we do a more thoughtful and accurate analysis of the factors that contributed to the financial meltdown (see Stanford Economics Professor Thomas Sowell’s book The Housing Boom and Bust), we will miss opportunities to fix the problems, and prevent their recurrence.

As Professor Sowell’s research notes, it was a “whole series of very questionable decisions by many people, in many places, over a period of years, built up the pressures that led to a sudden collapse of the housing market and of financial institutions that began to fall like dominoes as a result of investing in securities based on housing prices.”

Of course TARP recipients are highly accountable for how they spend taxpayers’ investment. And I agree with Nell Minow, corporate governance expert and shareholder activist, that the market is a much better method in determining compensation packages based not on a quick buck, but on true shareholder value; which implies value not only to investors, but all stakeholders including employees, customers, partners, and others.

However, it’s unclear that slashing pay on its own can ever achieve this in a way that results in greater ROI and value for shareholders, or stakeholders.

For example, an initial unintended consequence of the pay czar’s deliberations is that Citigroup is selling off one of its most profitable trading groups, for billions of dollars less than it’s worth to avoid the arbitrary ceiling on a high performing, value-adding employee who has fulfilled his part of his employment contract; this is a multi-billion dollar loss for taxpayers and stakeholders.

It’s ironic, given that Mr. Feinberg (who lamented the term ‘pay czar’ as a name the media invented at the National Association of Corporate Directors meeting I attended on Tuesday), has announced that he will require better governance and risk assessment for TARP companies, which implies rules for preserving or increasing value, not losing it.

In an ideal world, the Obama administration and Rep. Frank would show as much concern and action in managing the staggering amount of taxpayer money at risk in the federal budget as they are in the companies that have received TARP funding.

The average American is outraged that the same people on Wall Street who helped cause this major recession are going right back to their greedy and irresponsible ways. I applaud the Obama administration for taking an important step forward in trying to control the obscene compensation packages of the top executives on Wall Street.

The pay czar's pay slash can only be seen as a good thing if you think of it is a limited concession on the part of the administration to the widespread outrage towards executive compensation, one that thwarts even more permanent, systemic legislative limits on bank pay.

But that is the generous spin. However viscerally satisfying it may be to those of us who don't earn Wall Street pay, this is a terrible move, and a self-defeating one for three reasons.

First, the perception that Washington wants to further meddle in the business world - even as a shareholder with rights - spooks financial markets. Last week we all gave kudos to Obama for presiding over an impressive rally back to Dow 10,000. He can't have it both ways; the rally was due to a belief that the administration would resist such populist moves (remember that the markets tanked in March after the stimulus had been passed in Congress, but when anti-bonus and pro-nationalization talk was most rampant in DC). Again, let's hope this is a one-time deal, lest the market reverse course.

Second, even if the rest of the market shrugs this off, there is something perverse about taxpayers coming to the rescue of certain enterprises and after we have taken them over, THEN penalizing them and undermining their ability to compete against those not subject to federal constraints. Goldman Sachs must be cheering pay curbs at Bank of America and Citigroup as much as the most rabid anti-Wall Street Obamaites.

Third, if Ken Feinberg's pay curbs comes to be seen as just one skirmish in a broader, all-out clampdown on Wall Street by the feds, then over time the danger isn't merely that stars and clients at federally-controlled firms like Merrill or Citi will jump ship to firms like Goldman, which already paid pack their TARP funds. The bigger danger then could be that the entire financial services industry could jump ship to relocate somewhere offshore.

On another topic: NYT: The Obama administration is dithering on a decision about whether to send more troops to Afghanistan, former Vice President Dick Cheney said Wednesday night, and accused the White House of trying to shift the blame for its inaction on the Bush administration...

Followed by: A day after former Vice President Cheney charged the Obama administration with "dithering" over its strategy for the war in Afghanistan, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs returned fire with guns blazing.

"What Vice President Cheney calls dithering, President Obama calls his solemn responsibility to the men and women in uniform," Gibbs said Thursday. "I think we've all seen what happens when somebody doesn't take that responsibility seriously."

Calling Cheney's comment "curious," Gibbs attacked the Bush administration for allegedly taking years to provide the support necessary for the war effort in Afghanistan.

"I think it's pretty safe to say that the vice president was for seven years not focused on Afghanistan," Gibbs said. "Even more curious given the fact that an increase in troops sat on desks in this White House, including the vice president's, for more than eight months."

Are you kidding me? It’s a golden opportunity to make a meaningful policy statement about corporate welfare; i.e. taxpayer money should not be used to line the pockets of Wall Street’s malefactors of wealth.

At a conference in London, a Goldman Sachs international adviser, Brian Griffiths, praised inequality. As his company was putting aside $16.7 billion for compensation and benefits in the first nine months of 2009, up 46 percent from a year earlier, Griffiths told us not to worry. “We have to tolerate the inequality as a way to achieve greater prosperity and opportunity for all,” he said.

Eight months ago it looked as if Wall Street was in store for strong financial regulation -- oversight of derivative trading, pay linked to long-term performance, much higher capital requirements, an end to conflicts of interest (i.e. credit rating agencies being paid by the very companies whose securities they're rating), and even resurrection of the Glass-Steagall Act separating commercial from investment banking.

Today, Congress is struggling to produce the tiniest shards of regulation that would at least give the appearance of doing something to rein in the Street.

What happened in the intervening months? Two things. First, America's attention wandered. We're now focusing on health care, Letterman's frolics, and little boys who hide in attics rather than balloons. And, hey, the Dow is up again. The politicians who put off Wall Street regulation for ten months knew that the public would probably lose interest by now.

Second, the banks keep paying off Congress. The big guns on Wall Street increased their political donations last month after increasing their lobbying muscle. Morgan Stanley's Political Action Committee donated $110,000 in September, for example, of which Democrats got $43,000.

Official Wall Street PAC donations are piddling compared to the tens of millions of dollars that Wall Street executives dole out to candidates on their own (or with a gentle nudge from their firms). Remember -- the Street is where the money is. Executives and traders on the Street have become the single biggest sources of money for Democrats as well as Republicans. And with mid-term elections looming next year, you can bet every member of Congress has a glint in his or her eye directed at the Street.

That's why the President went to Wall Street to raise money Tuesday night, gleaning about $2 million for the effort. He politely asked the crowd to cooperate with reform -- “If there are members of the financial industry in the audience today, I would ask that you join us in passing necessary reforms" -- but those were hardly fighting words. It's hard to fight people you're trying to squeeze money out of.

Which is the essential problem.

Ken Feinberg, the President's "pay czar" came down hard on executive pay yesterday, for those banks still collecting money under TARP, as well he should. But Feinberg isn't trying to pass new financial reform legislation, and TARP no longer covers several of the biggest banks with the highest pay and bonuses -- although they're still getting subsidized by the government with low-interest loans.

Wall Street and the Treasury want us to believe that the TARP money will be repaid to taxpayers, but Neil Barofsky, the special inspector general keeping watch over TARP, said yesterday that just 17 percent of the TARP money has been repaid, and “[i]t’s extremely unlikely that taxpayers will see a full return on their investment." Later he told a reporter that it's unlikely "we'll get a lot of our money back at all."

Brian Griffiths, the Goldman international adviser who told us inequality is good for us, doesn't know what he's talking about. America is lurching toward inequality once again, led by the financial industry. The Street is back to where it was in 2007, but most of the rest of us are poorer than we were then -- largely due to the meltdown that occurred because Wall Street overreached. The oddity is that we bailed out the Street, including Griffiths and his colleagues, but apparently won't even be repaid.
And now that Griffiths et al knows his firm and the other big ones on the Street are too big to fail, he and his colleagues will make even bigger gambles in the future with our money.

Slashing super-sized citizen-subsidized salaries? It's about time. A belated but welcome step in the right direction. As I argued back in March when opposing the AIG bonuses, there are no bonuses on Main Street, where pay cuts and pink slips are a fact of life and American workers wind up on the short end of employment-related contractual disputes on a daily basis -- so why does Wall Street have a different standard?

TARP was meant to pull us back from the brink, not to enrich the very people who were part of the problem to begin with. As a percentage of the TARP executive pay is not much, but as a symbol of the new austerity it's huge - sort of like freezing a Congressional cost of living adjustment. Seeing the bailed out executives hit in their wallet feels good - but relief for our wallets would feel even better. We still must chase down the rest of the money, audit the Fed, see where our dollars were spent, and learn when we can see a return on our investment: TARP money back to the Treasury, loosened credit restrictions, and fewer foreclosure evictions.

If you get into bed with government, you are going to get up with more than just a bad night's sleep. If these corporations took government payola, they too are now diseased and corrupt, just like Washington.

Allan MeltzerProfessor of Political Economy and Public Policy, Carnegie Mellon :

All the noise about pay and pay cuts is part of an effort to divert the public's attention from the main cause of the mortgage fiasco. It evades recognizing the role that Congressman Frank and others had in creating the mortgage crisis by refusing to limit the activities of Fannie Mae and Freddy Mac after 2003. They prefer to blame Alan Greenspan and the bankers. Fannie and Freddie should be closed. An honest administration and Congress would insist that housing subsidies should be on the budget, voted on like other spending. Until Congress closes that avoidance of the budget process, we can expect a repeat in the future.

In the short term, it's a very good thing. The president's popularity is flagging; this should perk it up. And it does seem pretty clear that companies relying on federal bail-out funds should be more sensitive to public opinion.
This is possibly a meaningless mass panderfest. Management at the companies gets to tell key employees that we tried to give you boatloads of money but the evil federal government wouldn't let us. And the government gets to pose as the populist avenger. Good all round -- escept for the folks who aren't getting their zillion dollar bonuses and nobody really cares about them.

In the long run, however, this decision underscores the urgent need to get government out of business. Politicians in control of business decisions face irresistible pressures to do the politically popular thing -- prevent layoffs, invest in the districts of powerful congresspeople and so forth -- that will ultimately ruin the businesses they control.

Embedded in David Orentlicher's comment is the right issue. The question is not so much the level of compensation, although that is important, as the way in which the compensation package is structured. Compensation packages -- base salary, stock options, performance bonuses, signing bonuses, and much more -- need to be structured so that executives with fiduciary responsibilities to stockholders, bondholders, lenders, and other stakeholders have the right incentives to make good fiduciary decisions.

Packages that encourage executives to take too many risks (or, at times, too few risks) or to otherwise reward the wrong people (including themselves) at the expense of those to whom they owe fiduciary responsibilities are a bad idea in general, and especially when the public is a substantial lender or owner.

Draconian or symbolic, it's what the public wants to see. It's the taxpayers telling bailout recipients, "Pay us back first, before you pay yourselves.". This is an opening round in what will be a long period of rethinking executive compensation -- how much, how it is calculated, and how it is tied to performance, especially long-term performance. It is certainly an attention-getting move -- get them in the paychecks, and hearts and minds will follow.

Are you kidding me? What is the argument against the US cutting the salaries of executives whose companies contributed to the worst economic collapse since the Great Depression? Why shouldn't the salaries of executives whose companies were saved from extinction, hence, they would not be receiving any salary right now, be cut? Just about everyone else in America is receiving a pay cut right now. Why not them? AIG? Bank of America--the bank that continues to lose billions of dollars while it jacks up the credit card interest rates of its customers?

Should these "executives," which really begs the definition of the term, continue to rake in unlimited dough? Myself, I was astounded that Barack Obama continued the policy of bailing out these "institutions," a policy begun under George W. Bush. Isn't "free market" a system in which failure is part of the game? But given that Obama went down that road, he has to exact something from these "ceo's" to have any political credibility. The reality is, as The New York Times reports, this compensation plan will still allow "multimillion-dollar pay packages." What's a million here, a million there for these fat cats? They ought to be glad they are allowed to keep their jobs at all! Inner city drug dealers run more efficient economic operations than these goons. Some say this is a concession to the "mob." NO. It is a concession, a relatively mild one, to the PEOPLE, who bailed their b___ out. This pittance of penalty for gross negligence is the least that the banking and insurance world should expect for their ineptitude.

It is obvious that the “pay czar’s” only interest in this decision was political. First we have a minimum wage. Now we have, effectively, a maximum wage. The federal government has rules on whom to hire, how to fire, how often those employed must actually show up for work, the “safe” layout of the factory floor, what and how much may be emitted into the environment, ad infinitum.

At some point there needs to be an objective and rational discussion about the political system into which the United States has devolved and its ultimate effect on US competitiveness. There is, I believe, a name given to that system in which “although state ownership of all real property and means of production was not a part of the program, which rather favored an alliance with private enterprise to foster the capitalist order, yet the state reserved the right to intervene whenever it decided private initiative was proving incapable, or when political interests were at stake” (Encyclopedia Americana, Vol. XI, 1958). It’s on the tip of my tongue but I am hesitant to recall it.

Reform of CEO compensation is a critical concern—corporate pay packages have been too generous and too likely to encourage the kind of risk-taking that contributed to our economic crisis. The Obama Administration should move swiftly and aggressively to address the problem, especially with companies that are misusing the taxpayer dollars that bailed them out. That said, there are more important and more effective approaches than having a government pay czar review and cut corporate compensation on a case-by-case basis.

Kenneth Feinberg’s role should be a short-term one to fill in the gap while longer-term policies are developed and implemented. Public disclosure of all the components of a CEO’s pay and benefits package is useful, and we know that corporate pay needs to be linked more directly to long-term corporate performance. CEOs should not be rewarded for short-term juicing of profit margins, nor should they be rewarded when the company’s stock rises because of industry-wide or overall economic trends rather than their own contributions to the company’s bottom line. As part of its reform legislation, the Administration and Congress need to ensure that companies adopt pay incentives that reward real economic productivity and discourage excessive risk-taking.

The Pay Czar’s decision may be welcomed by the mob, but once folks get a glimpse of the profoundly negative consequences, expect the enthusiasm to fade. First, a dangerous precedent has now been established, granting one of the special czars vast powers to set pay and performance standards for companies with deep ties to the government . I would specifically suggest that quite soon other companies that are heavily regulated by the government (utilities, defense contractors, pharma) may soon encounter none-too-subtle pressure to cooperate with government or face a similar fate on executive compensation.

Second, pity the poor and ailing small business community. A few days ago, Obama promised to put more money into small and regional banks to kick start small business lending. Few of those banks are likely to accept government TARP money now, especially since with it comes the implicit authority of the pay czar to set compensation levels for bank employees. So, small businesses will not see any improved lending any time soon.

And finally, do we really want a pay czar, unconfirmed by the Senate, un-vetted by the normal review process to uncover potential conflicts, to have this sort of power? Forget the normal American system of checks and balances. This guy, now, is the most powerful man in America and he and he alone, seems to have the ability to decide how much people should be paid. Wow!

Nolan McCartyProfessor Politics and Public Affairs, Wilson School of Public and Intl. Affairs :

There are two really bad ways to determine executive compensation. The first is the “heads I win, tails I win” system that has emerged over the past 30 years. The second bad way is to have compensation set by a pay czar. Like any heavy-handed intervention in a market, Czar Feinberg’s edicts are likely to have a variety of unintended consequences.

Executives at these firms will now scramble to pay back the government and escape oversight even if early repayment of TARP funds is not in the best interests of shareholders or the financial system overall. And, of course, the possibility looms that the talent loss at these firms will be so great that the firms struggle and never pay back the taxpayers. Finally, in the big picture, this manifestation of populist rage against TARP executives is a distraction from more fundamental reforms that could mitigate the worst aspects of the old system without resorting to government fiat.

Well, what's the theory here? That it is inherently a good thing to cut executive pay, and since Barney's in the majority, he's going to do it? That strikes me as a short-sighted and wrongheaded position.

Having taken equity or creditor positions vis these firms, the government, like other lenders and investors, has a right to watch over its investment. But this power is not as broad or as clear cut as it would be in the case of a private investor or creditor. It is dangerous to give government power, and in numerous ways we limit government action in ways we do not limit private actors. To give just one example, the government may not generally engage in viewpoint discrimination against speakers on government property, even though a private property owner may do so on his private property.

We place these restrictions on government, when it acts in the private sector, because we know that government, with its raw size, its monopoly on legitimate use of force, and its ability to print money, is not like other private actors. Whether or not the government bailouts are a good thing is one issue, but regardless, it is not at all clear that having taken place, those bailouts should give government all the same rights as other investors and creditors.

Government is not a private entity, it is fundamentally different, and our nation was created from a deep distrust of government power. We may give government greater power to deal with particular problems, but we ought to retain that distrust and maintain limits on that power. Other creditors can try to influence their borrowers. Only government can use the force of law to dictate results. It is tempting to say that having gone to the government teat, these companies are now at the mercy of government -serves them right. On the other hand, the government made these loans and investments with knowledge of the pay practices and contracts at these companies. It has no right to break those contracts now. If the loans were coming with strings attached, the government should have said so at the time.

More immediately, the goal should not be merely to slash pay, but to maximize value. Yet nothing suggests that that is how pay Czar Kenneth Feinberg is making decisions. Populist politics, rather than sound management, seems to be the driving force in Mr. Feinberg's dictates.

Indeed, there is a kabuki like aura to his decisions, as many of the most visible executives at these firms have already slashed their cash salaries, and as pay has already shifted, in companies such as Citibank, to longer term stock grants. This is not to say all his decisions are wrong, but they inspire limited confidence. They are immediately satisfying to those who simply don't like hearing big pay numbers, but confidence and sound management, more than populist vengeance, is what the economy needs.

It's great to see Kenneth Feinberg (a.k.a. the Halloween pay slasher) do his job. The idea that executives at these bankrupt companies would be walking away with salaries in the tens of millions of dollars, funded with taxpayer dollars, should be offensive to every person who works for a living.

Of course it remains to be seen whether these announced cuts will mean anything. Wall Street is all about gaming the financial system and these people have risen to the top due to their skills at gaming. If the cuts are not iron-clad then we are likely to hear things like reductions in bonuses being offset by larger stock option grants or some other form of compensation being awarded at a future point. These are not honest people that are we are dealing with here.

It is nice to see that Feinberg has rejected an argument that was earlier embraced by the administration about the "sanctity of contract" protecting bonuses and other compensation. This was always a ridiculous argument because contracts do not survive bankruptcy (ask the auto workers who lost the health care benefits that they worked for 30 years). These are firms that would be bankrupt except the government has deemed them too big to fail.

Giving executives who wrecked their firms special protection for their contracts, because their firms are very important to the U.S. economy, is ridiculous. The pay of these executives should be treated as though the firms are bankrupt, because that is effectively the situation.

Unfortunately, this round of pay cuts is just touching the tip of the iceberg. It does not address the larger problem of outsized Wall Street compensation and its culture of entitlement. The NYT quoted "a person close to the AIG board" as saying that the $200,000 pay cap was "insulting." This is an incredible statement since the individuals involved wrecked their company and cost the taxpayers tens of billions of dollars and are STILL getting a paycheck that is larger than 99 percent of the population We need to apply a wrecking ball to this Wall Street culture.

The best tool is a modest tax on financial transactions taxes like the 0.25 percent stock transfer tax in the United Kingdom. If we put comparable taxes on trades of futures, options, and credit default swaps we could easily raise $100 billion a year and bring the financial sector down to size.

I think a lot of liberals (such as myself) are walking into a huge trap. If we cheer on pay cuts for Wall Street as a general matter, using words like "greed" and "excess," are we willing to agree to take no money from Wall Street? Should President Obama have made that pledge before the New York fundraisers? Should he return their money?

Of course not - but we liberals have framed the issue in populist rhetoric and therefore are hoisted on our own petard. The only proper, and accurate, framing is:

Should the lender (or majority shaheholders, ie, taxpayers) have a right to require cut backs on exec comp when the loans haven't been repaid -- or, in the case of shareholders, when exec comp should be moderated while dividends are paid to shareholders, or the stock price increases, or both?

The answer, I would think for conservatives as well as liberals, is of course yes.

As former Senator Gary Hart once said to a group of businesspersons accustomed to tax breaks and subsidies, "if you want the federal government off your back, take your hands out of its pocket."

In remarks last month, President Obama chastised "reckless behavior" and "unchecked excess" of Wall Street executives. What about the "reckless behavior" and "unchecked excess" of Members of Congress who have mismanaged the taxpayer's money and sent the budget deficit soaring to $1.6 trillion in Fiscal 2009 and the federal debt to $5.3 trillion by the end of 2019? There shouldn't be any "charity cases" on Capitol Hill. Congress should be paid based on performance. So Congressional pay ought to be docked by 50 percent until the Federal budget is balanced.

This is certainly good politics. The bonuses are a source of universal outrage. But the key winners in this struggle may prove to be those outside the government net, the hedge funds and private equity people. Interestingly, these have been among the prime backers of Obama, more than the staid old banks.

The tragedy for the republicans is that they have no answer for any of this. They seem incapable of opposing any form of private greed on a coherent basis.

As a lawyer, I am very concerned with a “government official” interfering with privately made contracts, regardless of the subject matter. The facts are that these executive compensation contracts were made and absent a breach, should be honored. Freedom of contract is fundamental to a free market economy.

For those companies that the government still retains a ownership interest, then, it should use all the leverage available to reduce excessive executive compensation pursuant to the contract, by-laws, etc of that corporation. The government should not gain any special rights not available to other stockholders or creditors. For those companies that the government has no ownership interest or is not owed monies, then, it should not meddle into the affairs of private corporations. It is up to the board of directors and the shareholders of corporations to govern and set policy. The federal government should be in the business of setting reasonable regulation and oversight over financial services not ownership and control. While I do not agree at all with the decisions of some corporations to generously compensate their executives, especially in these economically challenged times, I must take the side that honors contracts as written. Unless a breach of contract claim can be maintained by a party with standing to bring such a claim, then, the contract must stand and be allowed to run its course. I do not believe the U.S. Government has the standing to bring such a claim. In any event, the fact that a “Czar” is unilaterally acting with authority over private corporations without any statutory authority to do so, is more troubling to me than the wrong he seeks to right.

Robert Hensley (guest)
IL:

Any Wall Street executive should know that stocks which the free market awards the highest valuation are on average overpriced, while the stocks awarded the lowest relative valuation are on average underpriced. See the work of Lakonishok, Shliefer and Vishny. The market works the same way with human capital, Wall Street executives on average are overpaid, while non-English speaking unskilled labor is on average underpaid. The same behavorial biases cause the problem - representativeness, greed, overconfidence, pessimism (which toward a human asset can be called contempt), herd instinct, etc. That said, a government fix can't solve the pay problem anymore than it can efficiently allocate capital. What would help is a recognition that market prices can be wrong and that the pay someone is receiving is not always the optimal level based on their real contribution to the firm. Just like in the stock market, everyone is hurt when irrational mispricings occur.
Just as obscene language invites censorship, the freedom to freely negotiate wages may be lost if it is abused.

Lee (MMBJack) McCarty (guest)
NV:

I lack detailed knowledge in the area of just how executives contracts at Financial Institutions are calculated, what they reward in the form of bonus compensation, whether a Bank or Wall Street firm executive is in the same pay category as a typical non-financial corporation - that rewards business innovation. Pay Czar issue concerns hedge funds, currency and commodities and gold trading, derivatives as non-regulated inventions to convert housing debt into investment instruments that in the recent disaster tanked ours and the world economy. These are in the same gambling realm as casino gambling in Poker and Baccarat, both of which involve skill that rewards talent. It appears that the Banks (for instance) are making their money not so much from lending to business and smaller start-ups with tomorrows innovations in alternative energy for example - but by using any and all sources of capital including TARP funds (the question of pay czars) what they seem to do is reward the best gamblers in currency, commodity markets of all kinds and especially gold and the dollar's relationship to other currencies. This is non-productive and diversionary from honest business by the banks that could benefit the economic recovery in America.

John Regan (guest)
CA:

Politically, the mandated pay cut seems like a smart move with little risk except 1) it reminds many Americans how much they disliked the bailout (and Obama's support of it) to begin with; and 2) to many, it may not seem like it goes far enough. Why limit the pay cuts to the top 25 executives in each firm? Why not the top 100?. The top 500? How about sweeping compensation reform, as suggested by Messrs. Orentlicher and Schauer? So I'll amend my thought: on both politics and on substance, the pay cut won't hurt Obama politically, but it may not go far enough for most people, to help him, either.
I don't see any upside to Republicans criticizing the move (except as an opportunity to remind folks that they opposed TARP), although they may not be able to resist a knee-jerk anti-Obama reaction.
As for Veep Cheney's comments, his ability to slander his perceived enemies and grotesquely distort reality continues both undiminished and unmatched out of office. I look forward to a follow-up speech in which Mr. Cheney asserts the Moon is made of cheese, the sun rises in the West and the Earth is actually flat. Still, Cheney's sneering visage reminds everyone who botched the war on terror to begin with.

Barbara Dumler (guest)
CA:

Fox news is definitely a legitimate news station. I thought the media's loyalty should be for the truth. Fox News reports the news. Glenn Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly ask the questions that all news media should be asking. I always knew that some politicians were corrupt but after my research I am appalled and I am very afraid of where our Country is headed. No one has any common sense anymore. You can't spend what you don't have! It is irresponsible, and that is what our government is doing! If you keep printing money it will be worthless! The President is supposed to be everyone's president! He sounds like he wants to stifle fox news or anyone who doesn't agree with his agenda and that is so wrong! Is he trying to get rid of FREE SPEECH?I don't feel comfortable with the people around our President. Dunn who looks to Mao for inspiration is WRONG! Van Jones an avowed communist, Mark Lloyd who admires Chavez? Geitner didn't pay his taxes and wasn't charge any penalties. I'm tired of all the Dems & Rep deciding issues based on their party lines. Things that affect all Americans should be discussed by both parties and they should be listening to the American people and not calling them astroturfers! Ordinary citizen no pol. ties

Patrick Northway (guest)
IN:

Better the pay czar's knife than the People's Guillotine. One in Six Americans is now in poverty. The ONLY thing keeping the guns out of the Boardroom is that most Americans have had something to lose- a home; a family; a future. That no longer exists for a lot of people. Never, ever mess with someone who thinks they have nothing left to lose. It'll never happen? Funny, that's what the French said, too...

R. Alan Smith (guest)
CA:

With the pay czar action the “yes we can” mantra of the Obama Administration takes an ugly, but predictable, turn. Welfare (whether for people or for corporations) tends to enslave rather than liberate. The doubled-edged moral hazard of bail-outs cuts two ways: it frees the bailed-out from the consequences of unwise risk, while enslaving them to the dictates of government paymasters. Whether masters are good or bad, benevolent or malevolent, light-handed or heavy-handed with the whip, slavery is still slavery. The bailed-out have bellied up to the government bar for what they thought were “free drinks”; now the bartender demands to be paid. Soon the feel-happy tunes in the elevators of corporate America will be playing an old Sam Cooke tune from the 1960’s: “That's the sound of the men workin' on the chain gang!” R. ALAN SMITH, Momentum Strategist; Executive Coach for Political Leaders & Senior Executives

Peter Fahey (guest)
OH:

One of the most effective Democratic tags for the Republican's is the new "Confederate" party
;southern, white, male, pushing secession (see Texas) and states rights, against change and innovation, for the entrenched financial and political powers and against immigrants, jingoist, intolerant religiously and socially, small town suburban, not urban;
it's easy to run against a 1850's ideology in 2010

Michael Hart (guest)
WV:

The wages that a person receives for their services should be governed by their employment contract. Who the person chooses to work for is basicly up to the person. With this in mind, and the knowledge that if you tie yourself to government money you will become subject to the regulation inherent, I would suggest that this is the template for the administration of all fedral programs. It seems that the present administration's policy is that the czar will decide what contracts to honor in his kingdom. My question is, will the unions still support the democratic party when this template is applied to their wage and benifit package? I already see signs of this in the form of cadilac plan taxes proposed in congress and that is before the czar weighs in. I would like to see the wage and comp package for all of the czars posted, by the whitehouse, on the internet as an act of transperancy, and a panel of homeless people set to decide if the compensation is excessive.

Reuel Castillo (guest)
CA:

We first have to understand that the ability to set executive compensation was passed part and parcel with the TARP legislation. So bailed out firms knew this was a possibility and stuck their tumb in the eye of the taxpayers who have kept them afloat anyway. For the average American who recieves welfare aid, they are given restrictions. For instance their food stamp alottment can't be used to buy liqour or lottery tickets. I don't see why the same rules shouldn't apply to their TARP welfare program. You can't use taxpayer dollars for exhorbitant CEO bonuses (especially when those same CEO's caused the recession in the first place). If the mega corporations don't like it, that's ok. Just pay the money back. What I find interesting here is that there are those on the right who share the vindication of this move as seen right here in the Arena. But there are then others on the Right who chime in with the 'woe betide the government hand that tampers with the market' argument. I'm sorry but this is nonsense. So it's ok for the government to intervene when Wall Street needs taxpayer money, but has to be hands off about what it gets spent on? I thought Laisez Faire capitalism has been exposed as a flawed concept long ago.

Jonathan Wolfman (guest)
MD:

Many squirm when government intervenes in private industry. The TARP bailouts, the auto industry moves, and now top bank executives' pay cuts make many queasy. I want to say two things to those who may be very angry that government is restructuring compensation for some bank leaders. First, only those who accepted huge amounts of tax bailout money are affected. This means that these men and women chose to survive in this way after their self-inflicted disaster became clear. Years of radical banking de-regulation lobbied for by the industry coupled with a decade of wild speculation brought their industry (and the nation) to its knees. Second, the history of private capital-induced economic disasters and subsequent government-initiated recoveries has always required unusual acts of public clean-up. The clean-ups have always weathered charges of 'Socialism!'. It would be useful for people to read the histories of those earlier eras. If they did they'd find that the so-called socialists have preserved capitalism intact against enormous odds and have strengthened it.

Phil Gonzalez (guest)
TX:

It's never a very good thing to slash the pay of a CEO. That's third world thinking where the pay of a CEO should equal that of an average person. There's a very good reason a person is paid what their worth. Even when the company suffers a loss, an average person without the skills couldn't have kept the company afloat and jobs saved. That type of thinking went out long ago. It's equal to a dictator in a third world country removing the lawyer and putting him in the kitchen and getting the cook and putting him in the position of the lawyer. It's just not sound thinking in order to have a growth. In the businesses that got bailout's, what's to stop the CEO from leaving the business and going to greener pastures. Or is the government going to tell the CEO, because of the bailout their not allowed to leave the business as a form of punishment for the bailout. There's good reason President Obama has so many critics. He keeps getting himself in positions like this because of his Czars and there's no one to blame but himself. It's time to run this country based on what works for this free society and put the book based on a utopia society away where everything is equal. The American way works, it's call opportunity for all.

George Stiller (guest)
FL:

US taxpayers had to subsidize the greed and failures of individuals whose efforts to make big money for themselves caused the collapse of the nation's economic system. We therefore should not allow them to able to run away, continue to make big bucks, and repeat this situation all over again with a new employer that results another government bailout. This economic catastrophe needs to stop here and the only way to do it is to penalize severely the individuals that created this mess. Just giving them a small fine, a slap on the wrist, handing them billions in bailouts, allowing them to run away to make big bucks working somewhere else, does not solve the problem. We already see that they went back to business as usual at their present employers, making big profits with our money, and leaving us with all the risk, failing 401Ks and long unemployment lines. These high-powered executives gave new meaning to their MBAs (Master of Bailout Acquisitions). So, what makes anyone think that they will not do it again with a new employer? In conclusion, I believe the planned reduced compensation policy should follow and penalize these individuals from employer to employer for a minimum of 10 years.

Jason C (guest)
TX:

Since the Administration feels it is necessary to go on the offensive this Fall, only 10 short months into its term, it is also necessary for vigilant citizens to go on the offensive as well against the incompetence of these "leaders." Every action creates an opposite and equal reaction, right? Let's see, if I was responsible for tripling the deficit, confusing foreign policy initiatives, failing to establish clear directives, supporting 10% and above unemployment rates, bankrupting the treasury, circumventing free speech, surrounding myself with Marxists, deligitimizing Congress with 30+ Czars, unleashing attack dogs on news mediums, and accepting prizes without accomplishments, I would probably find a way to redirect the focus of the people as well. Acorn, SEIU, and most of the left-wing base may disagree, but, are we surprised? A man who has never run a hot dog stand suddenly is responsible for the entire econimic system. He may be able to teach the "philosophy" of governance in the classroom and organize a few groups, but reality has now settled in on his administration. He is clearly inexperienced, and it shows.

More POLITICO Arena

About the Arena

The Arena is a cross-party, cross-discipline forum for intelligent and lively conversation about political and policy issues. Contributors have been selected by POLITICO staff and editors. David Mark, Arena's moderator, is a Senior Editor at POLITICO. Each morning, POLITICO sends a question based on that day's news to all contributors.